Certainly. Many movies are quite different from the books they're based on, and even if they aren't so different, it's still a different experience. Sure, you already know most of the plot, but then the same is probably true for some other classics, of which people know the plot just because they're that famous. That doesn't mean they aren't worth reading anymore.

As for the definition of "classic", I think we can be fairly broadminded on that... if you think of it as a "classic", it probably is. If you're in doubt about whether a book is a "classic", feel free to ask people's opinions here, but at the end of the day there is no objective list of classics, it's always a bit subjective.

Hm, I would say a book can only count towards one category. But here too, not all of those genres have very exact definitions, and you can push the limits a bit if you like. After all, the essence of all of the challenges is the same: making people read good books and talk about them. If they choose e.g. a western that some people argue isn't a western at all, well, that makes for at least one topic to discuss with others, right?


Honestly, that's up to you to decide. If you include a number of ultra-short books in your list to get to fifty, people may comment on that, sure, but it's your choice. Some people include things like textbooks that they have to read for an exam, others don't. Up to you. The only suggestion I'd make in this regard is not to go reading ultra-short books at the end of the year just so you can claim you got to fifty - not unless those are books that you really want to read, anyway.

And there are some cases of books that are very short in numbers of pages - most plays, for instance, but some novels too - but are very highly thought of regardless, so I hardly think anyone would criticize you for including that kind of work on your list.

I'd say no on re-reads for this one.